Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45

Thread: Poll of Obama voters show split on deficit

  1. -31
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Progressives dont want fair, they want punitive. They want those who have more to pay more. Lets start calling it what it is.
    Agreed. They don't want fainess, they want everyone equal. They're also not concerned with revenue. It's about getting even - which is what they mean when they say "fair".
    Quote Quote  

  2. -32
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Fair is fair.....and that means everyone should be taxed at the same rate and share the burden equally. Where you got the notion that someone that worked and made more should shoulder more is patently unfair, because it has to be unfair to the person you take from.
    At a flat 15% rate, the millionaire paying $150,000 in taxes is shouldering more burden than the working man who is paying $15,000 in taxes.

    The way you explain it heare makes it sound like you're for a flat fee instead of a flat rate based on income.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -33
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,319
    vCash:
    30793
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
    Anything other than a flat tax, by definition, is unfair.
    Ok, buddy!

    Paying a higher percentage than everyone else is not a good definition of "low" taxes. Using that way of thinking we could bump up the tax on the rich to 100% for a few years and then "lower" it 99% and tell them all what a great deal they're getting.

    As well as being one of the more regulated countries in the world, our taxes on business are among the highest in the world too. Our labor costs are very high compared to many other countries as well.
    From Bloomberg:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloomberg
    Bloomberg Rankings has analyzed dozens of data points from 11 sources to devise a new ranking of the world's best countries for business. Fifty nations were analyzed on six broad criteria including the cost of starting a business, the cost of labor and materials, and the cost of moving goods. The study also tallied how integrated each country was into the global economy, the "readiness" of its consumer base to participate in economic activity, and less tangible costs such as corruption and property rights protection.

    The winner? Hong Kong, whose strong rankings on all six criteria edged it ahead of the Netherlands (No. 2) and the U.S. (No. 3).
    Read more here: http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2...-business.html

    The US bends over backwards to be a great place to do business. Meanwhile the American worker has suffered and the gap between the rich and poor has skyrocketed in the last 30 years. Not all of these are either/or choices, but this concept that business is struggling because of governmental interference or restrictive policies is just flat ridiculous. It's time for workers to win out on a few of these choices that are either/or, though.

    The heart of a thriving economy is a strong middle class, and the best way to help create a strong middle class is to invest in it. That investment has to be paid for.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -34
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    ... why do you believe raising taxes would not have an impact on the deficit?
    If you keep doing things that shrink the pie (the economy) it doesn't matter how big of a piece you take.

    macinack(dot)org/676

    History has shown that taking less to grow the economy actually increases revenues.

    Which leads us back to the fundamental question: is this about revenue or "fairness"?
    Quote Quote  

  5. -35
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,319
    vCash:
    30793
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
    If you keep doing things that shrink the pie (the economy) it doesn't matter how big of a piece you take.

    macinack(dot)org/676

    History has shown that taking less to grow the economy actually increases revenues.
    No it hasn't. All the Laffer Curve, which is the basis for supply side economics, says is that there is a sweet spot in tax rates at which revenue is maximized (since the government will take in the same amount of revenue at 0% tax and 100% tax). That is not the same thing as saying that lowering tax rates will always increase revenue.

    Nobody agrees where that point in the curve is, however. It could be 5% or it could be 95%.

    Income tax rates have been significantly decreased twice in the last 60 years, by Kennedy and by Reagan. The actual effect decreasing rates had on the economy is widely and vigorously disputed. There's too many variables for a pat analysis of the kind you're making.

    Which leads us back to the fundamental question: is this about revenue or "fairness"?
    It's about both. Revenue must be raised, therefore it raises the question of how.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -36
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1259
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    You consistently use the word arbitrary wrong. It's not a random choice, made for no reason. I have my reasons. Someone else can have theirs.


    Actually you just used it wrong, whenever you base something upon your own standard it is the very definition of being arbitrary because you have based it upon your own personal whim, you have made yourself the ultimate arbiter. Of course that is not allowed in logical reasoning and that ss why I always have to press you on that issue. If you deem for yourself what is “fair” and “unfair” then you have no logical ground to make an argument that the current tax code is somehow “unfair” because you arbitrarily set the standard for fairness.

    As for your last point: that's what democracies do. The population as a whole by vote or by choice of leaders sets policy that might only affect a portion of the population.


    That is precisely why democracies ultimately always fail, the people eventually realize that they can just vote to give themselves more freebees at the expense of the minority.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  7. -37
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1259
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
    Agreed. They don't want fainess, they want everyone equal. They're also not concerned with revenue. It's about getting even - which is what they mean when they say "fair".
    You could not have possibly hit the nail more squarely on the head. They have no standard of “fairness”, it is whatever they arbitrarily set it at. The wealthy already pay a higher percentage than anyone else; that looks to me as being more than their fair share. This is more about social justice and equal outcome than anything else, you’re absolutely right.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -38
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,319
    vCash:
    30793
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    Actually you just used it wrong, whenever you base something upon your own standard it is the very definition of being arbitrary because you have based it upon your own personal whim, you have made yourself the ultimate arbiter. Of course that is not allowed in logical reasoning and that ss why I always have to press you on that issue. If you deem for yourself what is “fair” and “unfair” then you have no logical ground to make an argument that the current tax code is somehow “unfair” because you arbitrarily set the standard for fairness.
    No.

    That is precisely why democracies ultimately always fail, the people eventually realize that they can just vote to give themselves more freebees at the expense of the minority.
    Can you give me some examples of democracies that fell for this reason?
    Quote Quote  

  9. -39
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,085
    vCash:
    6917
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post



    9954 always says that. In fact, he says nothing else, which is why I have him on ignore. Yet he also seems to bemoan the loss of some past America where things didn't used to be this way, which sets up sort of an odd paradox. If nothing changes, then why are things so different from how they used to be?

    Something tells me that's a load of BS. Stop being a wus.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  10. -40
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Websters defines Fair
    marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
    conforming with the established rules
    consonant with merit or importance

    Websters defines Punitive
    inflicting, involving, or aiming at punishment

    Websters defines Equal
    of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation
    like for each member of a group, class, or society
    regarding or affecting all objects in the same way

    Now...of these 3, which most actually describes the tax rates espoused by Obama? And i'll go you one farther.....Romney was villified for not giving details of his plans....where are the details of the cuts that will help to balance the budget? It's all smoke and mirrors, and while everyones ooohing and aaahhhhing, our government steadily removes itself from the people and more and more becomes a puppet for the special interests across the spectrum.


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Poll: Dems split over handing Obama '12 nomination
    By SnakeoilSeller in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-02-2010, 03:59 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 06:29 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 10:27 PM
  4. Poll Finds Voters Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout Positions
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 05:21 PM
  5. Pre Election Poll: Taxes, Spending, Deficit
    By DeathStar in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-10-2006, 02:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •